Dear all,
For your information please.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
This open letter is a plea which, as a concerned Singaporean, I am
making with some confidence, since at no time has your government
been more sincere and earnest in inviting feedback to make our
society an even better place to live in.
My plea concerns the long-standing issue of political openness. It
had, in the more than 40 years of PAP rule, been a source of much
unease in the relationship between the government and the people.
Now and then, the unease would erupt in the open, with the people
agitating (usually through permitted channels such as letters to
the press, public forums, dialogues with members of parliament,
etc)for a long overdue political opening up, and the government
firmly, often sternly, reminding them of more important national
concerns, such as bread-and-butter matters that affect the lives of
everyone.
But despite the lack of agreement, there was reason to hope. For
there were signs that the PAP leaders saw a political opening up as
a necessary goal , even if a very disagreeable one, to be achieved
sometime in the future, even if a very distant one. There was no
escaping the fact that Singapore ,being a permanent member of the
free world of practising democracies, is open to international
scrutiny. I recollect your PAP colleagues talking about the need to
proceed cautiously in the controversial matter of political reform,
the need to avoid the perils of revolution, by adopting the
peaceful process of evolution, variously called incrementalism
and gradualism, to emphasize the small, even imperceptible, but
definitely forward-moving steps. The message seemed to be: Be
patient. In good time. When we are ready.
Now I note with alarm that this is not going to happen. For the new
model of PAP governance which, under your premiership, is shaping
up to provide the definitive, final framework for government policy
in the next 40 or more years, has no place or role for political
freedom. There are two principal features of the model that provide
the evidence to support this worrisome thought.
Firstly, the current nationwide campaign of sweeping change to
transform Singapore into a world-class society able to hold its own
among the best in an increasingly competitive world, pointedly
excludes political reform. Such a conspicuous and complete
exclusion has never been seen before. It bears the marks of a major
policy decision, and clearly has a message to send out. Hence while
business, technology, education, civic society, the arts and
entertainment have undergone spectacular changes that are
transforming both the physical landscape and the national psyche,
the political domain has shrunk into a tiny backwater, stuck in the
Dark Ages of neglect while a brilliant Renaissance is sweeping on.
The few political clubs that had existed in the past have closed
down, and no new ones are expected to appear. Even the very term
political reform has vanished from the national vocabulary, like
something too irrelevant, embarrassing or tiresome to
mention.
Recently I asked some friends if they thought that the ongoing
process of liberalisation might somehow reach even the isolated
political precinct , and they would at last see what they had
witnessed only in other countries or on TV - public assemblies,
placard-waving street demonstrations, political satire in the
media,etc. Not in our lifetime, they said.
The message sent out by the government is clear: We dont need all
these. Without the noise and unruliness of political activism
getting in the way, we get our job done quickly, smoothly,
effectively. Look at the mayhem its creating elsewhere.
The second feature of the new model of governance is the systematic
use of fear to silence existing dissident voices and discourage
potential ones. While there has always been a climate of fear under
PAP rule, the new model seems to have developed it into a distinct
strategy of control, making special use of an instrument that has
come to be known as the out-of-bounds markers. These are rules
which stipulate what Singaporeans can and cannot say should they
choose to criticise the government. The effectiveness of the
markers is derived from their being deliberately left undefined and
unexplained, for two obvious reasons. Firstly, it allows the
government to have its own interpretation of each case as it
arises, to suit its purpose. Secondly, since no one knows when or
whether the markers are being overstepped, everyone plays safe by
practising self-censorship which can be a more effective curb than
direct censorship.
In general, the markers may be said to allow criticism only on the
governments terms, that is, only on subjects it approves, and only
in a manner that does not undermine respect for its authority. In
theory, then, any criticism can be construed to be a violation of
the markers. In practice, the government not only tolerates, but
encourages criticism regarding practical matters of day-to-day
living, such as maid levies, safer roads, saving water, the CPF.
But it responds severely to any criticism of government style or
competence, creating enough fear for the critic to make quick and
often permanent retreat.
Hence while the fear experienced by Singaporeans is by no means the
kind experienced in a police state, it is still a palpable one,
creating wariness and affecting behaviour, even in routine,
everyday activities. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest
that it could become pure paranoia, as seen in the many coffeeshop
stories about Singaporeans not wanting to talk too freely with taxi
drivers who may be government spies, not daring to be seen with
ex-political detainees or members of the opposition parties, in
case of secret surveillance , not voting for the opposition in the
general election for fear of being found out and losing their
homes, jobs, promotions,etc. The most feared punishment is the
defamation lawsuit which can result in permanent financial
ruin.
And now, having painted this rather direful picture, Mr Prime
Minister, I must go on to make an observation with something of
admiration mixed with puzzlement. Your strategy of fear,
questionable though it is, is being used to serve a purpose that is
totally laudable. Not even your severest critic can doubt that your
purpose is no more than the well-being and prosperity of Singapore
. Indeed, the true starting point for an understanding of the why
behind all your policies would the assumption of this commitment,
and the starting point for an understanding of the how for their
implementation would be that of a practical, realistic
problem-solving approach. These two assumptions of commitment and
pragmatism clearly sum up the entire PAP strategic framework.
In this particular instance of your use of fear, your pragmatic
rationale must have gone something like this: It is our job as the
government to give the people a good life; we will not be able to
do so if we are constantly subjected to the disruptions that come
with political activism; therefore we must get rid of the hindrance
quickly by using the most effective means of all - instilling
fear.
Hence the fear becomes, in a rather roundabout and paradoxical way
, the its-only-for-your-own-good strategy of a caring parent. It
is this paterfamilias role that softens the PAP image into that of
a protective and thoughtful leadership, in stark and edifying
contrast to the many corrupt regimes around, where fear is used for
pure self aggrandizement.
Moreover, as if to soften the image further by compensating for the
use of an instrument that has brought anxiety to many and misery to
some, you have, Mr Prime Minister, in keeping with what has been
observed to be a generally kind and compassionate disposition, made
tremendous efforts to reach out to all those in the society who are
by no means enjoying the good life the poor, the old and infirm,
the unemployed, the handicapped, the mentally ill. You have
certainly fulfilled your promise, made at the start of your
premiership, to create an inclusive society where no one will be
left out.
Material prosperity infused with warm humanitarian impulses this
is as good as it can get for any society. Singaporeans, enjoying
life in arguably one of the safest, most comfortable and most
prosperous societies in the world, and at the same time being
constantly reminded to show concern for the less privileged, can
only give wholehearted support to such a salutary model of
governance.
Indeed, your new, unique model may have an appeal beyond its own
shores. For in its ingenious blending of carefully selected
elements from the democratic system on the one hand, and autocratic
rule on the other, it may be just the model sought by new,
fledgling democracies in Asia that have become disillusioned with
the western model. The Singapore model must be the only one in the
world where capitalism at its most liberal , comports well with
autocracy at its most fearsome. Political pundits may see it as a
desirable compromise model, whether it is called benign
authoritarianism, enlightened autocracy, or inspired
paternalism, and even recommend it as an alternative model worth
emulating. Singapore, the small city state once described by a much
bigger neighbour as no more than a little red dot on the world map,
will have reached prominence on the world stage when and if that
happens.
Into this glowing picture, I will now have to inject a sombre note,
running the risk of being a spoilsport( even an ingrate, for I came
to Singapore from Malaysia forty years ago, and have been enjoying
a wonderfully safe, comfortable and happy life since). I would like
to draw attention, very respectfully, Mr Prime Minister, to a
certain flaw in your model of governance, which could have serious
consequences in the future.
The flaw is in the governments assumption, indeed its unshakeable
belief, that the excellence of leadership will continue well into
the future, well beyond the earthly lives of the present leaders
and the leaders who come after, because of a special continuing
process of self-renewal that it has so carefully and painstakingly
built into the model. By this process, using the most stringent
standards, promising young men and women are selected, tested and
trained for leadership, so that the core principles of hard work,
discipline and incorruptibility laid down by the party founder Mr
Lee Kuan Yew, can be preserved for all time. Since the corollary of
good leadership is trust and support from the led, there will be a
strong and enduring government-people relationship through the
generations, ensuring the permanent well-being of Singapore .
Hence, if the PAP aims to be a government in perpetuity, it is only
because of this highest of goals.
Heres where this idealised picture falls apart: it ignores the
inevitability of change through time. Twenty, thirty years down the
road, there is certain to be a change in quality in the leadership.
And it will be a change in the direction of decline, simply because
in a globalised world of rapid, overwhelming change that has
greatest impact on the young, the original core PAP principles and
values will steadily lose their influence and may even disappear
altogether. The future PAP leaders will therefore be very
different. As I have often pointed out in my commentaries, in the
worst-case scenario, a corrupt leader could appear on the scene,
and get away with it, because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust
of a fearful, overdependent people. Recently, during the
question-and-answer session at a ministerial forum at Nanyang
Technological University, Singaporean students mainly stayed
silent, leaving foreign students to ask questions of Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
However, it will only be a matter of time, in this era of
increasing and intense global exposure, before we see a change in
the attitude of the younger generation. For one thing, they will
not feel the same gratitude for the good life, as their parents and
grandparents; for another, they will be less deterred by the
climate of fear. This is because the impulse for political freedom
is a very powerful one, being an innate driving force in human
nature, seen in every society , in every era of human history. No
matter how much it is suppressed, diverted or ignored, it never
goes away, but eventually asserts itself in one form or other.
Young Singaporeans, at some point in the future, will realise that
no amount of material prosperity can compensate for the denial of
this basic human right, and will feel the need to strike out to
claim what is rightfully theirs.
It is illuminating, Mr Prime Minister, that in your current
dialogues with college and university students, they are less
interested in what you tell them about the challenges of economic
and social development, than in your thoughts and intentions with
regard to the issue of human rights, public debate, public
consultation, alternative voices,etc. Among them must be
individuals who will be the futures tiny minority of rebels , such
as the wildly creative artist ready to defy conventions, and the
ferocious non-conformist with political leanings, ready to
challenge the establishment. It is a pity that your model has a
place for the first but not the second, for surely true progress in
society depends on the nurturing of both. And it would be the
greatest pity of all if the young political rebel soon lost heart,
got absorbed into the majority, and concluded, like them, that
compliance with the powers that be, made for a more comfortable
life. Fear, whether it results in people yielding in submission or
lashing out in resentment must be the most damaging force in
society.
I had begun this letter with a plea. It is an earnest plea to
consider what can be done to remove this fear, for only then can
the process of political reform begin, to lead eventually to what
every society needs for resilience and the capacity for renewal a
continuing core, even if only a tiny minority, of alert, savvy,
skeptical, dedicated and above all, unafraid citizens who can be
relied on to be the movers and shakers. Indeed, no nation can be
called great unless it can claim such a citizenry which transcends
all governments. The greatest legacy of the PAP may, ironically, be
in the creation of a society that no longer needs it.
Mr Prime Minister, the reality is that this process of political
education and nurturing can only be initiated by you and your
colleagues. For other parties, such as the media and the
educational institutions lack the necessary clout; in any case,
they would prefer to look to you to set the tone and direction. A
political opening up in Singapore - a real one, not the tokenism of
a Speakers Corner - is the work of many years, and would require
much honesty, patience and perseverance. But if you and your
colleagues begin the process with the same resolve, energy and
intelligent planning that you have brought to the many economic and
social challenges of recent years, it will be the most promising
start indeed.
Yours respectfully
Catherine Lim